No Responses to “If you could change one thing in the world of whisky, what would it be?”

You see this in Ireland and Scotland too with “branded” whiskies. For example, Knappogue Castle Irish whiskey has come trom three different Irish distilleries over the years (Bushmills, Cooley, and the old B. Daly distillery).

I guess – in addition to resurrecting some of the old, dead distilleries – a case could be made for trying to bring back the older styles of existing distilleries (I’m thinking, for example, heavily-peated Glen Garioch from the 60s & 70s, the tropical fruits found in 60s/70s-era Laphroaigs & Bowmores, etc, etc). Some of these represent the best whiskies I’ve ever tried.

I’d also – and I’m sure many people have stated this (I haven’t read the full thread yet) – like to cease the current trend in ludicrous aspirational-lifestyle marketing and the correspondingly stupidly-priced whisky; the sort aimed at Russian oligarchs and rich sportsmen.

Change the perception of blended whiskies. Its a pity that some ignorant people feel that blends are in general inferior to single malts. Which I feel is not true. There are a few blends (blended and blended malts) that are far better than some single malts available in the market today. In short, both should be equally respected. If there were no blends, the whisky industry will not be where it is today.

100% with Jordan: the US 700ml thing is a pure pain.
All is does is it keeps bottling outside of the US specially from small makers who just dont want to bother.
Customers need to be “protected” and all, ok, but absurd regulations are not doing anyone any good.

To build on an earlier Whisky Advocate Blog subject, I guess the one frustrating thing as a whisky enthusiast and afficianado that I would change is this: I would like some of the rarest whiskys to be more accessible to the average person. I realize that this is a pardox because the reason some whisky’s are so expensive and unobtainable is that they are extremely limited and so old. There simply isn’t enough to go around for one thing and secondly, the cost is prohibitive by its very nature. But after all, this is a “What if” scenario. How many of us would love to get our hands on a dram of that 64 year old Macallan?

I want to echo Forrest’s thoughts here. I would add to this the restrictions on imports to the US. There are some great and affordable bottling from Scotch, Irish, Canadian, and American Distillers that never make it to certain states. I am fortunate to be within the NY Tri-State Area and can get my hands on a number of items but there are always these great bottle I read about in Whiskey Advocate and elsewhere I cannot get or are prohibited from receiving. It would be a dream come true to be able to try any bottle, anywhere, at any time. I understand I am asking quite a bit but you asked.

It is a considerable problem if only, as you say, because of relatively small supplies. Overpricing, however, is totally within the control of the market and should be quickly, and sharply, criticized where and when it occurs.

More availability for products. I would love to see Wild Turkey 8 and 12 sold in the US. Also, it would be nice to see some younger scotch at more affordable prices. For example, Macallan 8 for $25 or so? That would be nice. It would make it a lot easier to sample bottles from more distilleries and taste their individual distillery profile without having to spend $45 a bottle. Sucks to drop $50 to realize you don’t like something.

Any bottle above 50£ should be sold in some kind of “unsealed” state. This would make uncollectable and only to be sold for the purpose of drinking. This is kinda in line with DBF’s wish (he also seems to look for only drinking value…)

I’m with Forrest. At the moment the availability is increasing almost everywhere, disclosure is getting better and such. The only thing that frustrates me to no end is that old & rare stuff gets released for $ 100,000.

There might be a few people out there who will disagree with you. Quality is probably the best its ever been, but prices have also gone up dramatically. I remember the 1990s. Those were my golden years. Amazing selection (especially with the independents) and super-low prices. But some of the worst whiskies I ever tasted came out of that decade. Fortunately there were only a few of those.

This, so much. Part of why OR has been reaping a lot of what would otherwise be WA liquor sales because the distributors are passing a lot of costs down to the retailers. Since there’s no legal shipping in the state, most people are stuck unless they live near the border.

I agree with everything already stated , so I will add:
I would like truth on the bottle, must disclose anything added (caramel ) what the source distillery(or multiple ones) amount of grain whisky added (if blended) and age of whiskies in bottle, along with type of wood and where it is aged. I know this would destroy a lot of marketing.

I would agree as well – full disclosure. Portwood’s point is excellent and Jeff S. is absolutely right: it would probably destroy many current marketing campaigns and a great number in the planning stages. And when simple statement of the truth would do that, it doesn’t flatter the industry very much.

For every whiskey bottle, I want to know what is in it and where did it come from. Require that the DSP number or its equivalent be listed on every bottle of whiskey and frankly, every alcoholic beverage. Simultaneously introduce a brand new code for truth in advertising and tie it in with TTB labeling requirements.

I am shocked to see all the pricing concerns. High quality whiskey is much cheaper than high quality wine. Whiskey is on par with craft beer on a cost per drink basis. Fifteen 1.5 ounce pours from a $60 bottle is $4 per drink. That would be $15 per drink from a $60 bottle of wine, and you have 48 hours to drink it once opened.

I too would love to see the Wild Turkey and Four Roses products only available overseas available here. I’ve had them, they are great. But mainly I think the bourbon industry needs to invest in PR to help the public understand the greatness of American Bourbon. Sponsor shows on The Learning channel, food network, etc. and more articles in the main stream press explaining the craft behind the product.

I love that comparison. And I’ve said the same thing, too. Also, once you’ve built your whisky collection a bit, it’ becomes much easier to make a bottle last longer. I know that if I drop $80 on a bottle, I know I can make it last a couple years. However, i suppose that does nothing to reassure those who own one or two bottles at a time.

I’d love to see a wider selection of Scotches in the United States — and of bourbons in the U.S. outside Kentucky. The British whiskey web sites make it clear that the folks over yonder have access to all kinds of good stuff we Yanks will never get to taste. A recent trip to Louisville confirmed a similar phenomenon (though to much less of an extent) in the U.S. when it comes to bourbon.

What I would change would be to find a way to stop “collectors” from buying 10 bottles of the most premium labels and putting them on on e-bay the same day at double the retail cost. At the same time relax the laws that prohibit buying alcohol from online retailers and getting it shipped out of state. The goal… increase availability of premium bottles at the original retail cost.

eBay is reported to be changing their alcohol policy by no longer allowing the sale of beer and liquor. The speculators will have a more difficult time unloading what they hoard, so there should be more available to those of us in the stores.

Paul you sound like a communist. Restrict, do not allow etc… What’s next? Confiscate and give them for free to your comarades? 😀
I collect whiskey bottles (new and old), not sell. I do not have any avenue to find them if nobody is allowed to sell them on eBay (or any other way for that matter).

I would like to see all whisky bottle labels to include “Tasting Notes”. My friends and I are often researching whisky web sites for such information when we open a new or unfamiliar bottle. It sure would simplify things if more information about taste would be included on the label.

It’s true; you could make your own tasting notes from the same list of generic adjectives used throughout whisky marketing and they would fit your whisky, or almost any whisky, just as well. I’m also with you on getting rid of the obvious cheat of caramel, but full disclosure would probably accomplish that because no distillery would want to have to admit using it.

Let’s not ask for it only with single malts. Don’t all whiskeys deserve tpo not be chill-filtered, and with no artificial color? Thank God for straight American whiskeys! Just wish the chill-filtering thing was part of those rules!

We all know that taxes are responsible for 50%+ of the cost of a bottle of spirits. Governments justify this by calling spirits “luxury” items. Fine. All well and good. But we also know there are many other items on store shelves that are “luxury” items that are not taxed like liquor.

I would propose a “junk food tax” be imposed with a corresponding decrease in taxation of liquor. If we taxed soda pop and chips, and decreased liquor tax, I am certain the incoming tax revenue would greatly increase over the income from alcohol alone. Thus, my ultimate goal is obtained: Lower prices through lower taxes. Lower prices means I can purchase a greater variety of bottles. With a greater variety, it imporves the chances of me having your favorite whisky on hand when you come to my house for a dram.

I would stop the chill filtration, also. This last weekend I bought a bottle of the Aberlour 16 at Hi Time Wine in Costa Mesa, CA. It was very good, but next time I’ll be buying the Aberlour 12 Non Chill Filtered. Same price, but the 12 NCF is a tastier whisky.

Why not have plastic corks like those found in Glenrothes bottlings? You still get the satisfying sound, but they don’t break and you can’t ‘cork’ the whisky.

Another option is the heavy-plastic twist-caps found on Yamazaki bottles. Or – bring back the spring-cap! A fab invention found on old bottle until the 60s/70s… It seals *very* well compared to shallow corks.

I’d love to see all the great whiskeys locked up in collections released for those of us who actually like to drink the stuff…and if that means there’s none of it left for “future generations,” well, you know, there are wonderful whiskeys being made now that they can drink!

How about regional WhiskeyFests! Especially if participants can bring the limited releases they have to share with others. This way we can all taste more if what has been produced. I do tastings every couple of weeks with friends. I’d be glad to share some of the interesting bottles I have with others who are willing to do the same. In my profession, we have big national meetings each year and international meetings every few years. We also have smaller regional meetings a couple of times a year. I know tastings exist at the local level but these need tobe better organized and better advertised. Whisky Advocate could help connect all the dots needed! I’d be willing to help pull something off in my region, especially if you deputized me!

Marc, there are way too many regulations on the sale of alcohol, almost everywhere to one degree or another,.that would limit the potential for this idea. It is illegal to charge for alcohol that hasn’t been supplied through whatever system is in place in a given state, so the event would have to be free, or at least no charge for the alcohol involved, which would limit the potential for the success of such an event.

I think what I’m saying is that you may have no idea how tough a task this would be. That, plus I just made it an even 100 comments!

1 – Grant additional National exceptions to the TTB regulations. Scotland, Ireland, and Canada simply have to say “Scotch Whisky” or “Irish Whisky – A Blend,” and meet their own nation’s definitions of whisky. Expand this to include Japan and most EU countries.

2 – A US trade deal with the EU which expands allowable bottle sizes in both areas; 750 and 375 for them, 700 and 500 for us. Sure, we’ll get odd sizes next to each other on shelves, but I think we can handle that as consumers.

///

Aside: I’d love to see more honesty about the impact of wood and particularly the previous contents of the barrel on whisky. Particularly in Scotland, they’ve got their old rag about how Scotch is just water, barley, and yeast, which really isn’t true. Else, we wouldn’t have things like “peated cask” Balvenie. The prior cask’s filling is clearly an ingredient in the finished product, but they hate to admit it.

I feel like a simple way to deal with odd bottle sizes is to mandate that all prices have to include price/ounce or price/cl. That way you can always make a reasonable comparison and it reduces the incentives to sell slightly smaller bottles to trick people.

Stop Diageo from putting up hotels ( houses are ok ) and winning the game of whisky monopoly ( better look under my car before I start it tomorrow ) . My opinion is that more competition would lead to better prices and would give the consumer more unique innovative products.

So there’s a fancy restaurant in town, as many local ingredients as possible. They even make a big to-do about not selling Coke and Pepsi products and only have natural, independent sodas.

And they stock pretty much every Diageo whisky made. >.< Someone really ought to let them know that Diageo is the largest spirit manufacturer in the world and the 12th largest company on the London Stock Exchange.

Don't get me wrong, I like my Lagavullin, but to be snooty about not selling Coke while selling Diageo is pretty lame.

I want lots more information on every bottle. Full disclosure of caramel coloring and CF are musts. Honest and specific provenance. And at the very least an age range if a proper age statement won’t be made. I want to know what I’m buying!

Justin Victor, above, penned my thoughts precisely! Taxation/regulation are two of the biggest issues with the price/availability of spirits. Someone above mentioned packaging and that, too, is a large contributor to cost. As well, someone brought up the matter of the three tier system of distribution…. With all of these factors coming to bear, its a wonder we can even find, afford and enjoy what we currently do have. However, I’m enjoying the hell out of it, none the less, and cheers to that!

The SMWS sends me bottles, apparently legally, here in Springfield…but it has to come through an in-state retailer. I don’t know if the retailer ever actually touches the bottle. Seems to me there’s an opportunity for an enterprising retailer to act as a clearinghouse for online dealers.

I agree that some of these state by state shipping laws need to be changed. Here is Mass, where just about everything enjoyable has had the fun regulated out of it, it can be difficult at times to find the whisky you’re in the mood for.

Besides, changing the law would make me feel like less of a scofflaw when I do crack the code to online ordering. (wink, wink)

Doing that too. Ran a bourbon dinner for a dozen bankers last night. The two who had never had whiskey before loved Blanton’s. Start sweet and venture from there. The “Scotch only” drinkers loved the Wild Turkey Rare Breed and our private barrel of Four Roses, aged 9 years and barrel strength coming in at 115 proof.

My sentiments exactly, Briggs. I’m new to the world of Whiskey & Bourbons. I was asked what’s the difference between whiskey, scotch and bourbon and I had no idea (scotch is from Scotland?). Although I am reading as much as I can about the subject, I wish restaurants offered “tastings” as they do with wine to educate us neophytes.

Not that simple, sir. The majority of us whisky lovers cannot simply transfer “passion” because that passion comes off as snobbery with our name drops, “private” barrels of this or that, inability to understand that all palates are different so it’s okay to start people off with “sub standard” stuff.

When 90% of whisky consumption is procured by folks who don’t care much about taste but more about it’s inebrating effects (and its been this way for how long?) we need to scratch our heads a bit more.

I homebrew beer/wine, but my interest/passions are more into Whiskey. If I could change one thing, I would like rules to be a little more relaxed in the US so I could legally distill and try my hand at making bourbon.

Another incentive for the legalization of home distilling would be to let people practice before they set up their craft distilleries. Right now there aren’t many good ways to practice, unless you want to work for one of the big companies first.

I posted this as part of a reply to an earlier comment and was wondering if it might’ve got lost in there. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about it…?

I guess – in addition to resurrecting some of the old, dead distilleries – a case could be made for trying to bring back the older styles of existing distilleries (I’m thinking, for example, the heavily-peated Glen Gariochs from the 60s & 70s, the tropical fruits found in 60s/70s-era Laphroaigs & Bowmores, etc, etc). Some of these represent the best whiskies I’ve ever tried…

As I have access to water, I propose that all whiskey is bottled at barrel-proof/cask-strength. I can cut it myself, thank you very much. (And yes, I will gladly pay more for less water in the bottle.)

Stop any influence of a controlling department. For decades Whisky was made with passion from enthusiasts and – again – it takes decades to mature a real good Whisky (at least Scotch :).
Nowadays in all the big corporate groups short-term oriented (and sometimes short-sighted) controllers decide about the future of a distillery based on some Excel-sheets. They can’t expect the payback and the profit, so they often decide for a quick win now rather than for a high quality later on…

That’s a great wish: put the industry back in the hands of the people who actually know it. There is way too much of the attitude “if we can sell it, then it must be good enough” and it’s why we’re going to keep seeing younger and younger bottles, all promoted as “bold expressions of the distiller’s art”; all NAS, of course – why talk about age when you have nothing to boast about?

I would say that many Scotch Whiskies are in the hands of those who know and love their whisky, and I include us. We are also proud to release new spirit and young whiskies as we believe that they are good, very enjoyable and lots of people agree with us.
Why talk about age…………… when it doesn’t tell the whole story. Age is only one element in a very complicated mix.

Age might not tell the whole story, but it’s strange how something previously thought so fundamental could now become the forgotten chapter of a process that is complicated, in part, because it’s dynamic and time-sensitive. It’s difficult to argue the relative importance of source water, barley, peating, cask type selection, and maturation environment without giving at least some important consideration as to how long these factors have to make their effects felt and/or interact with each other.

If “age is only one element in a very complicated mix”, it’s funny that it has always served as the industry’s primary pricing factor if it has little or no bearing on quality. Yet just as demand has outstripped the ability of many distilleries to restock age-statement introductory expressions at past levels, these distilleries are suddenly “discovering” that age doesn’t have the previously unquestioned relevance always assigned to it. But, despite the recent de-emphasis producers place upon the importance of product age for the consumer, distilleries continue to meticulously catalogue the ages of their casks, and steps in pricing still faithfully coincide with steps in age in the great majority of product ranges. I’ve yet to hear about a bottle of fifty years offered at NAS prices because “age doesn’t matter.”

The recent wave of NAS bottlings is driven, I feel quite sure, by the changing supply/demand curve. The marketing boys are just dealing with what they have. Hopefully, as the fruit of recent years’ increased capacity matures, the crunch on older whisky will ease, and supply (and price) will get back closer to the relative position we’ve been used to in the past. You have to remember, however, that the glut of the early ’80’s meant that 20+yo whisky was probably well underpriced a decade ago. The only thing that can put us back there is another crash, and I don’t think any of us really wants that.

I am always amazed by these spectacular new releases that divulge nothing on the labels. Magazine ads offer no further enlightenment. You have to ask around and check the distillery and Whisky sites as if its a big secret that only the “informed” get the privilege know. If Distilleries were really concerned about their clientele, they may want to inform their customers as to the vintage dates, different procedures, and barrels used. Check Ridge Vineyards labels on virtually any release they offer. Talk about informing their customers! Distilleries might want to take a page from this winery’s book.

Isle of Arran has answered your prayers with its Devil’s Punch Bowl. They give us the whisky’s pedigree in a list of every cask (including filling year) that went into the batch. Maybe this will catch on. It’s brilliant.

I’d love for Michigan, my home state, to leave the age of post-prohibition in the dust; and at least take a stab at liberalizing their controls on distribution and retail sales of whiskey (all liquors actually). Oh, and I’d love to be able to score more than a bottle of George T. Stagg every OTHER year or so….. It’s so damned hard to get up here!

Purely selfish, but eliminate the restrictions within Texas (specific counties are dry or semi-dry) the prevent ordering alcohol on-line and having it shipped to me. As it is now, if I order something, I have to ship to a friend in a shipping-eligible state and then make separate arrangements. This limits my options and further increases the cost.

I would want the number of Whisky Advocate magazines to go from 4 a year to at least 6 a year. I read the magazine from cover to cover in one day and have to wait an entire season for the next one. That is just unacceptable. How hard can it be to print two more magazines a year PS I agree with Jeremy.

My wish would be that all reviewers (more and more are prolifirating accross the web) taste blind. That way we get a better picture on quality rather than sentiment (influenced by distillery status, location or age). It is one reason I always really look forward to the maltmaniacs’ annual blind taste competition. That said, I think Whisky Advocate has some pretty awesome reviewers, who (mostly) shoot from the hip.

I agree with John W. In any current round-up, say of 6 or 10 whiskeys, taste them blind and then rate them. You would need probably some coordinates to make it meaningful, eg, I would specify type (bourbon, rye etc.), age and proof. For malts, perhaps the region. And that’s it.